- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:56:21 +0100
- To: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Cc: Davis Ian <iand@internetalchemy.org>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org>
Let's hope they don't take too much time to agree on an easy to teach, read, understand syntax. Perhaps if they could agree that a well known subset was something they could build on, such as Turtle, one could proceed to change the current specs. Also having examples in Turtle and rdf/xml would have the following advantages: - it would help people learn rdf/xml if they knew turtle - and vice versa - but most of all it would make it clear that rdf is not about syntax but about the model behind it. I still have difficulty understand rdf/xml by the way (and can't be bothered to tell the truth), and only work with N3. Henry Story Sem Web Research, Sun Microsystems http://blogs.sun.com/bblfish/ On 10 Mar 2006, at 23:20, Dave Beckett wrote: > > As to making new RDF syntaxes, the RIF WG has that in their > charter, at > least for one targeted at rules. >
Received on Saturday, 11 March 2006 10:57:12 UTC